DEPARTMENT OF “HUH?” Benjamin Zycher emails:
I notice that your blog has shined virtually no light on Steve Levitt’s utterly embarrassing letter to John McCall, a letter that most scholars with a shred of dignity would write only after having crawled into a deep hole. (As best as I can tell, all you have done is offer an “update” posting with a link.) In case you missed it: Levitt admits that even as he claimed that the special issue of the JLE that Lott put together was not refereed, Levitt himself was one of the referees. Second, Levitt’s claim that Lott invited only authors whose views were consistent with his was undermined completely by his admission that he had been invited to submit a paper. (As, by the way, were others with views differing from Lott’s.) And, third, the comedy highlight of Levitt’s letter is his claim that “[Levitt] did not mean to suggest that Dr. Lott did anything unlawful or improper in arranging for the payment of the publication expenses for the Conference issue.” Of course not; precisely what, then, did he mean to suggest?
Perhaps you could offer some of your usual musings on that. More generally, your rather loud silence on this latest development in the Levitt/Lott controversy is interesting, particularly given the massive amounts of attention, quotation, and credibility over these past few years that you have deemed appropriate for those attacking Lott’s integrity. Now, why is that? Could it be that you simply are far less objective or “fair” than you like to pretend?
No obfuscations, please: A straight answer would be appreciated. Feel free to post this note if you wish.
Really, I don’t have anything to say besides “huh?” Well, and my earlier characterization of the Lott/Levitt dispute as “In my opinion, a lawsuit that shouldn’t have been brought, over a chain of events that shouldn’t have happened, and involving accusations that shouldn’t have been made.” Neither Lott nor Levitt has come off especially well in this, though it’s true that the latest news, which I did link, makes Levitt look bad. As for the rest, I really don’t think I’ve devoted “massive amounts of attention” to attacks on Lott’s integrity, though I did mention some of the problems he’s had, and I’m quite surprised to be accused of harboring some sort of brutal anti-Lott agenda resulting in “loud silence.” Whatever. Judging by the email address, it’s this Benjamin Zycher, (whom I actually gave space on my blog to defend Lott over an earlier matter) and the email seems a bit intemperate for a scholar.